fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
LoLA2.0 compared to other tools (
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA2.0 do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityComputeBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents LoLA2.0' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool whileothers corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

LoLA2.0 versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   LoLA2.0 GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 340 1 278   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 502 117
Error detected 1 70 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 343 7 Times tool wins 443 176


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for LTSMin, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 LTSMin Both tools   LoLA2.0 LTSMin
Computed OK 618 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 626 0 Times tool wins 618 0
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 302 1 Times tool wins 618 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for Marcie, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 Marcie Both tools   LoLA2.0 Marcie
Computed OK 337 88 281   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 534 172
Error detected 1 54 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 498 6 Times tool wins 472 234


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   LoLA2.0 TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 415 0 203   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 585 33
Error detected 1 2 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 414 7 Times tool wins 521 97


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   LoLA2.0 TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 5 5 613   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 323 300
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 5 5 Times tool wins 542 81


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   LoLA2.0 TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 466 0 152   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 569 49
Error detected 3 60 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 409 7 Times tool wins 554 64


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   LoLA2.0 TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 384 0 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 544 74
Error detected 3 137 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 250 7 Times tool wins 492 126


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart